The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

The Days of Creation in Genesis 1 were not Literal 24-hr days like we have today.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
daley has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 325 times Debate No: 103894
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




The person accepting this debate must be a Christian who believes the creation days were six literal 24-hr days.

If he poses his argument here in round 1, he or she won't be allowed to post an argument in the final round (round 5). He may choose to use round 1 for acceptance only in which case he or she would get to post an argument in round 5.


I accept your challenge. Look forward to a good discussion.
Debate Round No. 1


The days of creation in Genesis 1 cannot be literal 24 days for the following reasons:

(1) Genesis 1:14-18 records that the sun, moon and stars were made on the fourth day. The purpose of these heavenly bodies, especially the sun, is stated in verse 17 and 18 as "to give light upon the earth, to govern the day and the night." God said in verse 14 they would "mark seasons and days and years." Therefore, there was no sunrise or sunset, no sun or moon to give us literal 24 hour days on days one, two and three. It's hard to explain how the first three days were literal 12 hour periods of light and darkness without the sun. But even more, it was the creation of the sun (according to verse 14) that gave us literal days and years. Thus, the first three days cannot be understood literally, or else we have a serious contradiction between God separating a literal 12 hour day from a literal 12 hour night twice. (Gen 1:4-5 and 1:18)

(2) Assuming my opponent believes the Christian tradition that Adam and Eve were the first two humans God created, we have a situation where Adam named all the animals before God created Eve. Genesis 2:20 says that Adam named all the animals but for him, there was found no helper. Eve was created later, but no record is mention of her naming animals. Since both Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day (Gen 1:27-31), Adam had to name every single kind of animal in one day, in fact, less than one day to make time for the creation of Eve. They are so many millions of species of birds and mammals alone that no man could have named all in just 24 hours. "Global biodiversity is the measure of biodiversity on planet Earth and is defined as the total variability of life forms. More than 99 percent of all species,[1] that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.[2][3] Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 2 million to 1012,[4] of which about 1.6 million have been databased thus far[5] and over 80 percent have not yet been described.[6] More recently, in May 2016, scientists reported that 1 trillion species are estimated to be on Earth currently with only one-thousandth of one percent described.[7]"

(3) In the Hebrew text of Genesis 2:4, the Hebrew word for "day" is used to describe all 6 creative time periods, saying that the heavens and the earth were made in just one day instead of six. This could never be a 24 hour day, and yet, the same word is used for each of the six days in chapter 1. This shows that the author feels free to use the word "day" to mean a long period of time.

4) All the major continents on earth were once a single land mass known as Pangea. Satellite imagery shows that continents move away from each other at a rate of 2 cm per year, the same rate at which a finger nail grows. At that rate, it would have taken the continents at least 200 million years to reach their current positions. ( 6.0 6.1 Laurie R. Godfrey (1983). "Scientists Confront Creationism". W. W. Norton & Company, Canada. Pages 35-36) That length of time would take us way back before Adam was created around 6 to 7 thousand years ago depending on which Bible chronology you choose.

5) It takes a full year to lay down a pair of sedimentary varves. The Green River formation in Utah is home to twenty million years worth of such varves.

3) Radiometric dating technique include radiocarbon, argon-argon, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, lutetium-hafnium, neon-neon, potassium-argon, rhenium-osmium, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, uranium-lead, uranium-lead-helium, uranium-thorium, and uranium-uranium, and every single one dates objects far older than 10,000 years. Further, while these dating techniques have different decay rates, half-lives and so forth, they all agree on the age of the earth around 4.5 billion years old.

4) The Andromeda Nebula is 2 million light years away from the earth, so the light from there took at least 2 million years to reach the earth so we can see it.

5) Counting annual layers, scientists have found 700 000 layers of ice in a single sheet of ice, showing from the ice core series the earth is much older than 10 000 years. (Matt Brinkman (1995). "Ice Core Dating"(TalkOrigins) The days of creation therefore, could not have been literal days or else the earth would only be around 7000 years old.

(6) Each of the creative days in Genesis 1 contains the statement "and the evening and the morning was" the first, second, third day, and so on. This shows that these period began and ended. But no such statement is made about the seventh day in Genesis 2:1-3 showing that it continued. Hebrews 3:7-4:11 explains that this seventh day rest is still continuing, and we enter it by faith. This shows the seventh day wasn't a 24 hour day, and thus we can conclude that neither were the other six.

I will stop here for now, and let my opponent present his case.


1 - The sun is not what makes our day's a day. The Earth spins on it's axis. The sun simply marks the difference between day and night. The Earth would have still been spinning and still have taken the same relative time as it does today. Also, God created light on day 1. We don't know exactly what this means, but it is reasonable to sugguest that he was himself the source of light as he will be in heaven. (Revelation 21:23)

2 - One thing to note is that is says that Adam named every animal at the time. (1) This does not mean he named every animal we have today. God made animal kinds. (2) The diversity we have today can be explained by microevolution within these created kinds. We see animals mutate and form 'microevolutions' today, so we know this is possible. Now I want recall that the world was perfect at this time, because man didn't sin until Genesis 3. Therefore his mind was exactly as God created it to be. The evolutionist proposes that man has been evolving to be smarter, but the creationist believes that man has been devolving by means of mutation. We are a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of ... of the original. We're simply not as smart or fast as Adam was. Let's also remember God was with him and may have been helping him along the way if he needed. Adam, having the perfect body, was proabably able to manage that full 24-hour day of work if he needed. There was plenty of time for Adam to name the kinds, if we imagine the pre-sin world.

3 - The Hebrew word for day used here is 'yom.' (3) Yom has many uses, but most of the time it either means a 24-hour day, a 12-hour sunrise day, or a long span of time. We know that Genesis 2 uses it in a different sense, as do many other passages in the Bible.

4 - Pangea is a theory. We do not know that this to be true, we can only speculate. The Global Flood of Noah provides a mechanism to separate the continents at a faster pace. It is also important to note that the continents may not be such perfect fits as we believe. They fit much better with the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which probably came from the Flood according to Creationist Theory. (5; 6)

5 - If these layers are varves, and thinly came about year by year, why do we find such well preserved fossils in them? Fossilization is rare, and requires fast burial and specific conditions. (7; 8) It is also important to note, that if you research these varves there is a great level of regularity within them, which is strange if they each came about year by year for millions of years. Creationists have no issue explaining this as a Global Flood and result of a catastrophe. (9; 10)

(My opponent then made a mistake in his number datings, but I will adjust them to what they should be in order.)

3 6 - Radiometric dating is built upon assumptions. We assume that what we observe today, and for about the last 150 years, is exactly as the world has been for billions of years. This is unscientific. A Global Catastrophe would throw a wrench in this entire idea, because of the sheer devastation. It should be noted that Radiometric Dating is not perfect, and it does have errors. Radiocarbon is especially interesting. A mammoth was carbon dated, at one part about 46,000 years and in another 30,000. (11) Plenty of living creatures have been dated and concluded as thousands of years old. (12) Even more interestingly, we find Carbon14 in diamonds and coal, which shouldn't be there after 60,000 years give or take. (13; 14) The notion that these datings all agree and are never wrong is quite simply false. (15)

4 7 - Distant Starlight isn't really a problem for the Creationist. We don't just need starlight to be here in 6,000 years, we need it to have been here in a couple days. The stars were created as signs, so they had to be here by the time Adam was made. There are many different theories as to how to explain it, such as a time-dialation. Light-year is a measure of distance, not time. While it generally is used to measure time, we do not know that the speed of light has been consistent. We also don't know how close the universe used to be. About eleven times in the Bible God says he's stretching out the heavens, and that is what we find today. The problem may be solveable by a physical property, but God also could have done it miraculously. God created Adam and the Garden mature, so he could've made the universe mature. I am quite happy to admit I do not know though. While we look for a physical mechanism for distant starlight, we may as well also look for a physical mechanism for the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection. I don't think it necessarily needs a physical explanation based on what we find in Genesis.

5 8 - We have found World War 2 planes under 250 feet of ice. Considering the time since the war, this means they accumulated about 5 feet of snow per year. If this rate was constant, we would see that the ice we find could've been produced in about 1,000 years. If you account for all the processing to turn it into the ice layers, this could be explained in about 4,000-5,000 years. Exactly as Genesis predicts. There is no reason to assume that only one layer of ice forms a year. We see multiple ice layers form in a single winter. Ice layers are not evidence of an Old Earth, as presuppositions and assumptions are repeatedly used to arrive at these 'dates.' (16; 17)

6 9 - Each day of Genesis ending with 'and the evening and morning' should give you a strong indication of what was being talked about here. It is true that the seventh day is not over. We do not read that the day was over at the end of Genesis 1. This is no reason to assume the other days were not meant as literal.

Biblical Support of a literal 24 hour day
The Bible clearly indicates that the world was created in 24 hour days.

Exodus 20:11 (18) states that in six days God created the world. That is the reason that we even have our week. We can explain our year based on the sun, our month on the moon, and our day on the earth's rotation, but we have no calendar reason for a week except for the fact that God modeled this for us in Genesis.

Early church fathers, Jews, Pharasies, and believers of Jesus' day accepted the Genesis account as 24 hour days. (19) This is significant for many of reasons, but one of the most important things to note is that Jesus never corrected this. If this were wrong, you thing Jesus would at least elude to this false doctrine going around right? On the contrary, Jesus affirmed the Bible. Jesus believed in the literal Genesis account: Matthew 19:4, (Creation) Luke 17:26-27, (Noah) among many others.

To say that the Genesis account is not a literal 24-hour day creation is to reject the inerrency of Scripture. To reject the inerrency of Scripture is either to say God is a liar or the Bible is not of God, both of which the Bible says is not true. (Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2) If God or the Bible lie about what we can see, then we cannot believe them on the matters we can't see. Therefore, to reject Genesis 1-11 required rejecting the entire Bible and subsequently Christianity as a whole.

(1) - Genesis 2:19-21
(2) - Genesis 1:25
(3) -
(4) -
(5) -
(6) -
(7) -
(8) -
(9) -
(10) -
(11) -
(12) -
(13) -
(14) -
(15) -
(16) -
(17) -
(18) -
(19) -
Debate Round No. 2


1 - The sun is not what makes our day's a day? The text says "the evening and the morning" were the first day, so if you interpret this literally, you have sunrise (morning) and sunset (evening) as is the meaning of those terms when used literally in Dan 8:14 and other verses. It's the sun that gives us 12 hours of light as the earth spins. Without it, there would be darkness.

Now, you claim that when God made light on day 1, this light was shining down from the sky to the earth. Where does the text say that? It doesn't. Notice verse 1 makes us aware that this isn't the creation of the earth only, but also of the heavens (plural), so this light could have been anywhere. My opponent is imagining God to be shining down on the earth on day one, so why isn't he there now as our second sun? And where does the text say that he moved? This is speculation by Con. Con admits that when God made light, he "don't know exactly what this means," so why use it? It means what it says, that God made light in general, that doesn't say the light was shining down on earth as part of the first day. The he adds "but it is reasonable to suggest," you mean "ASSUME," well, Biblical doctrine isn't based on assumption but on what we know. Then he interprets Revelation 21:23 literally in the most symbolic book of the Bible.

2 " He claims that Adam only named the animals he had at the time, not the ones we have today. Really? He should have seen in my quotation from Wikipedia that "More than 99 percent of all species,[1] that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct." So we actually have less species today than Adam did, not more. So the number of animal kinds wasn"t increasing but decreasing with time. I wonder if he believes in macroevolution, because you simply can't get a zebra from a lion, so even if we call all the kinds of dogs one kind, that still leaves horses, elephants, jiraffes, monkeys, cows, kangaroos, snakes, turtles, koalas, bears, and we could go on and on. Doves didn't evolved into eagles did they? Yes, Adam was perfect, but no matter how smart he was he had limited time. It's so childish to imagine him rattling off names in just seconds to name all the animals in one day. Just look at this amazing diversity and think of how much time you think Adam must have devoted to examining each one to come up with a proper name.

It says that God was bringing the animals to Adam to see what he would call them. (Gen 2:19) Nowhere does it say God helped Adam name them as Con claims. How long do you think it took for the turtles to get in line before Adam? I would like Con to give us an estimate of how many animals you think Adam could have named in a day. The maximum. I can find more species than that alive today, plus the ones that went extinct! No man could name them in 24 hours.

3 " What Yom means most of the time is irrelevant. The issue is, what does it mean in Genesis 1? I have shown that the purpose of the sun was to give literal days and years, therefore, there were none before the sun was created.

4 - Pangea is a theory? So is gravity, don't you believe in gravity? Just like gravity, however, there is good evidence for pangea: "Fossil evidence for Pangaea includes the presence of similar and identical species on continents that are now great distances apart. For example, fossils of the therapsid Lystrosaurus have been found in South Africa, India and Antarctica, alongside members of the Glossopteris flora, whose distribution would have ranged from the polar circle to the equator if the continents had been in their present position; similarly, the freshwater reptile Mesosaurus has been found in only localized regions of the coasts of Brazil and West Africa.[19]
Additional evidence for Pangaea is found in the geology of adjacent continents, including matching geological trends between the eastern coast of South America and the western coast of Africa. The polar ice cap of the Carboniferous Period covered the southern end of Pangaea. Glacial deposits, specifically till, of the same age and structure are found on many separate continents which would have been together in the continent of Pangaea.[20]...
The continuity of mountain chains provides further evidence for Pangaea. One example of this is the Appalachian Mountains chain which extends from the southeastern United States to the Caledonides of Ireland, Britain, Greenland, and Scandinavia.[22]"

As for Noah"s Flood, while I believe it happened, it certainly isn"t the reason the earth looks the way it does. Here is why:
(a) Why are geological eras consistent worldwide? How do you explain worldwide agreement between "apparent" geological eras and several different (independent) radiometric and nonradiometric dating methods? This link gives actual meteorite samples that were tested using many different dating methods and they all agree unanimously on the age of the earth in the billions of years.

Young earth creationist's (YEC's) approach of focusing on examples where radiometric dating yields incorrect results is weak for two reasons. First, it provides no evidence whatsoever to support their claim that the earth is very
young. If the earth were only 6000"10 000 years old, then surely there should be some scientific evidence to
confirm that hypothesis; yet they have produced not a shred of it so far. Where are the data and age
calculations that result in a consistent set of ages for all rocks on earth, as well as those from the moon and the
meteorites, no greater than 10 000 years? Glaringly absent, it seems.

Second, they seem to think that a few examples of incorrect radiometric ages invalidate all of the results of radiometric dating, but such a conclusion is illogical. Even things that work well do not work well all of the time and under all circumstances. Try, for example, wearing a watch that is not waterproof while swimming. It will probably fail, but what would a reasonable person conclude from that? That watches do not work? Hardly. A few verified examples of incorrect radiometric ages are simply insufficient to prove that radiometric dating is invalid. All they indicate is that the methods are not infallible. Those of us who have developed and used dating techniques to solve scientific problems are well aware that the systems are not perfect; we ourselves have provided numerous examples of instances in which the techniques fail. We often test them under controlled conditions to learn when and why they fail so we will not use them incorrectly. "Most of the "anomalous" ages cited by creation "scientists" in their attempt to discredit radiometric dating are actually misrepresentations of the data, commonly cited out of context and misinterpreted" as can be seen in examples here:

(b) Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants? Obviously, they lived in a different era.
(c) Why don't any modern-looking plants appear as low in the geological column as Precambrian plant? And yes, the geologic column is real and is found in 26 basins around the world including North Dakota. The dates of these ecological ages were assigned by geologist long before Darwin got the scientific community interested in evolution, so you can't show the dates were conjured up to accommodate evolution.
(d) Why did extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
(e) The flood doesn't explain how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them, or why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata. Only an old earth fits all this data.
(f) No human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
(g) Why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?
(h) How could a flood deposit layered fossil forests? Stratigraphic sections showing a dozen or more mature forests layered atop each other--all with upright trunks, in-place roots, and well-developed soil--appear in many locations. One example, the Joggins section along the Bay of Fundy, shows a continuous section 2750 meters thick (along a 48-km sea cliff) with multiple in-place forests, some separated by hundreds of feet of strata, some even showing evidence of forest fires. Deposition by flood fails to explain the roots, the soil, the layering, and other features found in such places.
(i) Finally, the flood doesn't explain away the fact that volcanic ash from eruptions in known human history are found in the ice core series, and the exact amount of layers are found between the layers with volcanic ash as we find on our history calendars between eruptions, proving that these truly are annual layers. These layers testify to an old earth as well.
These facts prove the earth is millions, billions of years old, and thus the creation days were long periods of time.

I will respond to the rest of my opponents arguments next round.


1 - Evening and Morning are in reference to the position of the Earth. Do remember that the sun does nothing to indicate our time but stand still. The Bible says that light was created. We don't know what this means for sure, but there's no reason to assume there's a contradiction here. Yeah, I'm making some assumptions, but I'm assuming the text knows what it's talking about rather than assuming I know more about what is happening here better than the author. There's no reason one needs the sun to make the day.

2 - Notice that my opponenet says species are going extinct. God created animals in Kinds. This sometimes, but not always, can be traced to about the family level in Modern Taxonomy. This is two categories more general than species. (20) I tried for about half hour to find a reliable source as to how many animal families we have identified, but we simply don't know. One (unreliable) source sugguested about 5,000 (21) So let's use this number for now. Genesis 2:19 says that Adam only named the Beast of the Field and the Bird of the Air, therefore we don't need to talk about any marine life. Now I don't really know how many of our identified families are water families, but it is sugguested that about 50-80% of all animal life is in the ocean. (22) Now I'm making a lot of assumptions here due to a lack of real data, but this should capture the general idea. When you apply everything together, Adam only had to name a thousand or so animals. There is no record of Adam spending long durations of time investigating these animals, but that he simply named them. There is no reason to assume Adam could not have done this in 24-25 hours.

3 - You're the one who said that yom was used differently elsewhere and thus meant more than 24 hours. This isn't necessarily true, so don't act like I'm just inventing this, you brought it up. We don't define days by the sun, we define it as a full rotation of the earth. We don't know anything else, but it is suggested there was a light source of some kind. No contradiction here.

4 - I can live in and observe gravity. I cannot live in and observe Pangea. I must therefore reconstruct history. If my opponent read what I had said, or my sources, he would know I never claimed the continents weren't connected in some manner. We agree that the continents were much closer together and touching in some cases, but we don't necessarily agree that it was Pangea. There's no reason is absolutely couldn't have been Pangea. Regardless, my point is that it wouldn't take millions of years to separate these continants biblically.

Noah's Flood
a - Geological Eras are not consistent worldwide as there are errors, like I've shown before. Water automatically will layer sediment. I have, on my desk here, a jar of dirt. I put water into the jar, shook it up, and over several weeks the water evaporated out leaving layered dirt, which was assorted into different areas. This is similar to what we find in the Geologic Collumn. We would expect there to be some exceptions of this layering such as out of place fossils or something like that. According to evolution, the exceptions simply cannot exist. So when we find these, what do we make of it? (23) This phenomenon is known and documented as Liquefaction. (24; 25) As already stated, radiometric dating doesn't agree unanimously. It only agrees if you presuppose billions of years before you begin the dating.

Dating methods indicate that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. The Helium we have right now only accounts for about 40,000 years. (26) Volcanic Debris should have produced roughly 10 times the sediment we see today in four billion years. (27) Erosion rates, and sediment buildup rates are also not indicative of millions of years. (28; 29) Why do we still have hot planets? They should all be cooled off after so long. (30) It is also worth noting we never see stars form, yet we always see them blow up. Why do we have so many stars? I could list off dozens of other dating methods which are indicative of a young earth, but I believe I've made my point.

I believe that if our radiometric dating methods are wrong on several dates we very well know, we can't trust them to be right on dates we don't know. This is especially true because we don't know how the world has been different before these last 200 or so years. We have to make a lot of assumptions to get our radiometric dates.

b - Liquefaction explains this. Why do we find such well preserved features, such as soft tissue, on dinosaur bones supposedly millions of years old? (31)

Fossil Record
I want to address the Fossil Record as a whole, and I think I can answer the majority of your questions, at least indirectly, this way.

If Evolution were true, we would expect to see a couple of things in the fossil record. In reality, however, the record is missing many of the key ingredients expected.

For instance, we have yet to identify any transitional fossils. We have fossils we can make some assumptions on, but we do not have any conclusive evidence for transitions in the record. There is a massive gap between forms of life whose cells have nuclei, and those that don't. Links are missing between different plant groups, between insects, (their invertebrates and vertebrates) between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, as well as between apes and other primates. There are not simple missing links here, but missing chains! (32)

Not only are there missing chains in the fossil record, or 'evolutionary tree,' but this 'tree' doesn't even have a trunk. At the very bottom of the fossil record life appears suddenly, complex, and diverse. Evolution postulates small changes led to complexity, but this simply isn't what is found. Fish, Worms, Coral, Jellyfish, and Mollusks among other complex species are found at the bottom. This doesn't make sense from an evolutionary perspective. We can't even figure our where insects come from based on the records. (33)

e - Coral Dating requires that coral has always grown at the same rate. This is an assumption. Studies indicate that in these reefs would not take millions, or even more than a couple thousand years, to grow in favorable circumstances. This is not evidence for long ages. (34; 35)

f - But we do find human artifacts, and it's quite the dilemma for evolutionists. (35; 36; 37)

Just quick I'd like to look at one more evidence of a Young Earth.

Mitochondrial Eve can traced back to a single human living somewhere in the Asia, Eurpe, and Africa border area, around 6,500 years ago. This is exactly what the Bible indicates, so this is a very interesting discovery. Studies indicate that Genetic Adam lived at the same time, roughly, as Eve. Some may argue that this 'Eve' was about 200,000 years old, but recent discovery as well as the removal of evolutionary assumptions indicate otherwise. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude both Adam and Eve existed about 6,500 years ago. (39; 40; 41; 42; 43)

Finally, I don't mean this as a point but a genuine question that I'm a little confused about, how did we know what dinosaurs were for thousands of years before we discovered archeological evidence for their existence? If they died millions of years before man, we should have no clue who or what they are, right? Hopefully you can help me with this one. Thank You!

Anyways, I would like to thank my opponent for participating thus far and being able to respond. I look forward to seeing his rebuttal.

(20) -
(21) -
(22) -
(23) -
(24) -
(25) -
(26) -
(27) -
(28) -
(29) -
(30) -
(31) -
(32) -
(33) -
(34) -
(35) -
(36) -
(37) -
(38) -
(39) -
(40) -
(41) -
(42) -
(43) -
Debate Round No. 3


5 - The famous Green River Formation (including shale and limestone) covers tens of thousands of square miles. In at least one place, it contains about twenty million varves, each varve consisting of a thin layer of fine light sediment and an even thinner layer of finer dark sediment. According to the conventional geologic interpretation, the layers are sediments laid down in a complex of ancient freshwater lakes. The coarser light sediments were laid down during the summer, when streams poured run-off water into the lake. The fine dark sediments were laid down in the winter when there was less run-off. (This process can be observed in modern freshwater lakes.) If this interpretation is correct, the varves of the Green River Formation must have formed over a period of about twenty million years.

YE Creationists insist that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old and that the geologic strata were laid down by the Flood. Whitcomb and Morris therefore attempt to attribute the Green River varves to "a complex of shallow turbidity currents ..." (p. 427). Turbidity currents"flows of mud-laden water"generally occur in the ocean, resulting from underwater landslides. If the Green River shales were laid down during the Flood, there must have been forty million turbidity currents, alternately light and dark, over about three hundred days. A simple calculation (which creationists have avoided for twenty years) shows that the layers must have formed at the rate of about three layers every two seconds. A sequence of forty million turbidity currents covering tens of thousands of square miles every two-thirds of a second seems very unlikely.

3 6 " Con continues to argue against radiometric dating based on C-14 in diamonds, etc, which evidence he got from the RATE Group of the Creation Science Institute. Although the RATE group has undertaken a massive fund-raising effort amongst ye-creationists, none of its members has experience or training in experimental geochronology. Two members, Austin and Snelling have written a number of articles in creationist magazines, but neither has published articles using radiometric dating in the mainstream literaturea. Their " 'technical articles' " attempt to discredit radiometric dating based on 'anomalous' results. The problem is that the anomalies were all generated via experimental flaws on the part of the investigators or simply misinterpreting technical articles from peer-reviewed scientific literature." Who carried out the peer-review? Are the RATE YECs interacting with their peers in the scientific world, free of the constraints placed upon them by their YEC employers? Are they out and about in the mainstream of science exchanging knowledge with their colleagues? Scientific knowledge doubles about every eight years and unless scientists are actively undertaking research and having their research dissected by their mainstream colleagues before publication, and publishing that research in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, then they have no way of keeping up with this explosion of knowledge. In the final analysis, The RATE researchers concede that there is evidence for "more than 500 million years worth (at today"s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay" (p. 284). This is a key departure from previous ye-creationist claims that radioactive decay is much less than reported.It is rare for a study involving radiometric dating to contain a single determination of age. Usually determinations of age are repeated to avoid laboratory errors, are obtained on more than one rock unit or more than one mineral from a rock unit in order to provide a cross-check, or are evaluated using other geologic information that can be used to test and corroborate the radiometric ages. Scientists who use radiometric dating typically use every means at their disposal to check, recheck, and verify their results, and the more important the results the more they are apt to be checked and rechecked by others. As a result, it is nearly impossible to be completely fooled by a good set of radiometric age data collected as part of a well-designed experiment.

4 7 " As for the speed of light changing? "Supernova SN1987A is about 170,000 light-years from us (i.e. 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles) whether or not the speed of light has slowed down. Still, the creationist has one ace of a sort remaining. Had the speed of light slowed down, as often imagined by creationists who have not advanced beyond Newtonian physics, the distance of SN1987A would still be 170,000 light-years as indicated above. However, the time that it would take for the light to reach us need not be anywhere near 170,000 years. We might counter by arguing that if the speed of light had changed then so would the decay rates of cobalt-56 and cobalt-57, and since their decay rates have been observed in SN1987A (and appear normal) that should settle it. After all, in observing SN1987A we are seeing it as it was in the past. The decay rates of cobalt-56 and cobalt-57 haven't changed, so light hasn't slowed down. (The speed of light is related to energy by E = mc^2. Thus, if the speed of light could somehow change, then energy would be affected. The end result would also be a change in the radiometric decay rates.)"

5 8 - We have found World War 2 planes under 250 feet of ice? Ice layers are counted by different methods (mainly, visible layers of hoar frost, visible dust layers, and layers of differing electrical conductivity) which have nothing to do with thickness. These methods corroborate each other and match with other independently determined dates.

The airplanes landed near the shore of Greenland, where snow accumulation is rapid, at about 2 m per year. Allowing for some compaction due to the weight of the snow, that accounts for the depth of snow under which they are buried. The planes are also on an active glacier and have moved about 2 km since landing. Ice core dating takes place on stable ice fields, not active glaciers. The interior of Greenland, where ice cores were taken, receives much less snow. In Antarctica, where ice cores dating back more than 100,000 years have been collected, the rate of snow accumulation is much less still.

A report of "many hundreds" of layers in the ice above the Lost Squadron may also be explained by the airplanes' location on Greenland. That location is relatively warm because it is low and more southerly; its surface gets repeatedly melted during the summer, creating multiple melt layers per year. At the site of the GISP2 ice core, melting occurs only about once every couple centuries. Melt layers are easily distinguished in ice cores. The more than 100,000 layers in ice cores are definitely not melt layers

6 9 " He admits the 7th day isn"t a literal day. This implies the others aren"t either.

10- By no means does Exodus 20:9-11 demonstrate that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six "days," any more than the eight-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days. In Leviticus 25:4 the pattern of one out of seven is duplicated with six years of planting the land and one year of "Sabbath rest for the land." This further demonstrates the analogy of our Sabbath to God"s Sabbath does not demand that the creation "week" consisted of seven 24-hour days.

The young-earth rejection of the big bang model parallels the Galileo controversy in the 1500s. Galileo observed the earth revolved around the sun, which conflicted with the Catholic Church"s interpretation of Psalm 93:1 (the earth being unmovable) and Ecclesiastes 1:4-5 (the sun appearing to revolve around the earth). Through scientific observation the meaning of Scripture was eventually brought into clearer focus. As respected Christian philosopher William Lane Craig states, "The Big Bang model "dramatically and unexpectedly [supports] the biblical doctrine of creation ex nihilo." Yes, the Bible is infallible, but not man's interpretation of it. Definitely not yours.

The Jews and Pharisee rejected Jesus as the Messiah, and didn't understand their own Scriptures, so it matters not if they thought the days were literal. Jesus didn't correct the Pharisees on their belief in reincarnation either, so does that prove it was right? Jesus not talking about the creation days doesn't show he took Con's side. It is well-acknowledged that the church fathers were by no means unified on how to understand the creation days. Even Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine rejected a calendar-day view, believing instead that everything was created instantly. For completeness, I should include Hilary of Poitiers and the Jewish scholar Philo who believed likewise. These are not inspired of God sources and no help in proving Con's case.

It's not denying the Bible to deny that the creation days were 24 hours long because the Bible doesn't say how long they were, does it?

How far does the Big Science conspiracy go? Currently millions of scientists that understand biology and geology agree with an old earth. According to YEC's they are just keeping their mouth shut because overturning an entire branch of science and winning a Nobel Prize would be too stressful. Add to that the fact that most government scientific agencies (and the entire Judicial branch of the US government) are helping prop up the theory. And don't forget the oil and mineral companies that use non-Flood geology as discovery veins of the good stuff. Well, then you are talking about the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind. It would include hundreds of millions of people over the last 150 years without one single person blowing the whistle. It just seems unlikely to me that every single discipline of science from oceanography, to paleontology, to geography conspired or accidentally agreed on billions of year.


5 - My opponent qualified his entire argument at the end: "If this interpretation is correct..." But if your interpretation is not correct, and based on the Global Flood it need not be, then your answer will not accurately reflect reality. My opponent has not explained how we find fossils across several layers within these 'varves,' when fossilization requires rapid burial in order to occur. If these thin layers represented years at a time, these fossils simply could not exist in their condition. While many explenations may explain what we observe, it need not be, necessarily, millions of years. (44; 45; 46)

3 6 - I had three sources for that claim, not just RATE. Regardless, I've spoken personally with some of the individuals involved in the program, and I understand what it is they teach and believe. Everything they've taught is open for evaluation and interpretation. One is free to review as he deems fit. The important detail in that quote you brought up is 'at today's rate.' Which we do not believe to be consistent based upon a Biblical interpretation of history. Ultimately my opponent has brought up no real points against the sources used, especially the ones he did not even mention.

4 7 - Then it seems that the speed of light has remained constant, at least relatively. I don't feel as though this point is worth arguing though, as mentioned before there is no shortage of explanations, and it doesn't really conflict with the Bible.

5 8 - The majority of my points on the ice layers went unrefuted, as the same problem still exists with my opponent. (47) I'll present some more issues with dating these layers in this manner.

There are fleshy and frozen soft tissue remains found in the Arctice Circle. We have dozens of mammoths and rhinos found here too. (48) Several animals such as horses, oxen, wolverines, voles, squirrels and bison have been found here too. (49) Now if all of these animals lived here, there are some questions that the evolutionist must answer. How did these warm climate animals survive in the cold weather? Where did they get food? The average elephant needs over 300 lbs of food daily. (50) Where did it come from? Where did these animals get water? How does the evolutionist explain the suddent freezing of animals with food still in their mouth? Why do we find evidence of them dying in summer or fall? (51) According to the evolutionist, the mammoths lived around a couple thousand years ago. (52) If this is true, they existed in this harsh winter climate, which they're not built for. The Flood makes perfect sense of all of this.

6 9 - Just because the seventh day is not literal says nothing about the other six. The seventh day does not contain the phrase 'and the evening and the morning...' nor does it ever indicate that the day was over. The other six contain the phrase 'and the evening and the morning were the x day.'

10 - The Feast of Tabernacles does not say 'For in 8 days you wandered the wilderness.' The account in exodus states: "For in six days God made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh he rested." This makes perfect sense of what we see; six 24 hour days, and on the eve of the seventh day God rested, and he never stopped.

Leviticus 25 is copying this same phenomenon. It does not say 'for in 6 days God created the world, therefore you will work for 6 years.' It simply uses the 6:1 ratio that God seems fond of. Sabbath means period of rest. (53) So this says nothing of creation.

Ecodus is the only one that states 'For in six days God created...therefore you likewise in six days will work.' We do not see that specific type of wording anywhere else, to refer to anything else.

It is possible that young earth creationists are wrong. I never claimed my interpretation was infallible. That's why I'm having this debate: To have my view challenged and to see which view makes more sense. I do not think you can compare creation to heliocentricity though. If sufficient evidence for the Big Bang surfaces, I would gladly get on board with it. The problem is I do not see this evidence in either the Bible or in Science.

Jesus, and many of his followers, were jews. Not all of them rejected the Messiah. The New Testament writers did feel it important to address reincarnation actually. (54) Not all of the church fathers were unified, but the general interpretation, as shown in my previous sources, was a calender week. Even some of those names you listed did appeal to this view. Since you didn't cite your sources though, there's no way for me to compare the validity of the claims. I must therefore assume I'm correct here. These views are not inspired, but seeing as these people lived much closer to Christ and the Apostles than we did, it is only logical to assume they had good interpretations for many things.

I wouldn't say there's a big conspiracy going on. There may be demonic influence in the theory of evolution, but I'm in no position to make such a claim. The problem is if you remove the Bible from science, you're going to come to weird conclusions. It's the natural conclusion from a natural world. I don't think we live in a natural world though, so why should I trust a natural conclusion?

Unfortunately, I do not believe the Bible leaves the option of long ages open to us. The Bible teaches that the world began in paradise. The world teaches we began as a molten blob. You must accept death, disease, and pain as "very good" as a Progressive Creationist. (55) This also means God declared our broken world full of natural disaster and cruelty as good several times in a row. (56) But this is all contrary to what Scripture teaches. (57; 58; 59) What are we to make of the geneology's in the Bible if they are not accurate for us to use? (60)

I do not think one can justify billions of years either biblically or scientifically. I look forward to the final round of the debate, and a fruitful conclusion to what we've both discussed so far.

(44) -
(45) -
(46) -
(47) -
(48) -
(49) -;(10-15)
(50) -
(51) -
(52) -
(53) -
(54) -
(55) -
(56) -
(57) -
(58) -
(59) -
(60) -
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by daley 2 months ago
I'm unable to post, this site says it hasn't updated its system yet, and then I ran out of time
Posted by daley 4 months ago
Been having trouble with my computer....
Posted by CreationGuy 4 months ago
There are many problems with accepting an old earth paradigm.....
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.